On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 5:10:39 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 1:25 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > >> We CAN know that, we know it through direct experience, we just can't >>> derive it from existing axioms which means we need to add it as a new axiom. >> >> >> > >> *We can only know that we are conscious right now, * >> > > Obviously, nobody knows what the future will bring. And since we most > certainly do know from direct experience that we are conscious right now > there is no reason not to add it as an axiom. > > *> Just to be clear, all I say is that we cannot tell a patient that >> science guaranties the survive.* >> > > Science can guarantee that the new brain transplant operation you're > about to have today will be no different from the brain transplant > operation you've already had that turned the man you were a year ago into > the man you are today. Science can guarantee if you've survived the one > then you'll survive the other. > > >> It isn't almost "*trivial*" it *IS* trivial, if I experience >>> consciousness then I have experienced consciousness; however for some odd >>> reason the ultimate simplicity of a tautology seems to confuse some people >>> when something more complex would not. >> >> > > > *The non trivial “non triviality” comes from the fact that it is not >> entirely easy to prove that* [...] > > > I don't understand why on earth you keep talking about proof when we have > direct experience. You don't know for a fact that I'm conscious but do YOU > really need a proof to know that YOU are conscious? If I had a error free > proof that you were not conscious would that really enough for you to > override direct experience and become convince that you were a zombie?? > >> >>> *It is really like self-consistency: for all self-consistent machine >>>> it is true, * >>> >>> >>> >>That is of course true >> >> >> *> OK. And then it is true, but never provable * >> > > And from that we can conclude that proof and truth are not the same thing > and the wisdom of saying yes or no to the doctor or yes or no to being > frozen has nothing to do with proof, it has to do with truth. > > * > Similarly, the Löbian machine knows that if she survive >> teleportation she cannot claim that such event proves computationalism to >> be true * > > > I don't know about Löbian machines because nobody on Earth except you > knows what that is, but yes you're right, she can't claim computationalism > is true, she can't claim she survived the teleportation, she can't even > claim she survived BEFORE the teleportation. She can't claim those things > because she can't prove them. Nevertheless she knows the truth, she knows > for certain if she survived or not and she knows for certain if > computationalism is true or not. > > > *the substitution level was enough low to say “I have survived”, bt you >> cannot be sure that you did not lose some memory or abilities, * >> > > And the exact same thing is true every time you wake up in the morning. > You have yet to give me a good reason, or even a mediocre reason, for > saying No to the doctor or No to being frozen. > > *> Consciousness is a first person experience. To relate it to anything >> require a “belief”, or a “guess”, or an “hypothesis” or “an axiom”.* >> > > Being an axiom is a very exalted position but can you think of ANYTHING > more worthy of becoming an axiom than "Bruno Marchal is conscious"? I'll > bet you can't think of anything more obvious than that, although I can. > > > *I can conceive that I am not conscious right now,* >> > > Bruno, what you say above is like saying in a loud clear voice "I AM > UNABLE TO SPEAK" because if you can "conceive" of *ANYTHING* then you > are conscious. > > >> > *but I can conceive that mechanism wrong, and that indeed, the copy is >> always unconscious,* >> > > Then you are always unconscious because YOU ARE A COPY of the man you were > last year, the atoms that made up that fellow have been replaced. > > >> > I defined the theology [...] >> > > I'm not interested in theology. I'm more interested in the mythology of > Harry Potter than the mythology of God; it's more fun, it's more > profound, and it has killed far fewer people. > > >> there has never been a definition of consciousness that is worth a >>> damn >> >> >> *> What about something which is, for the entity concerned* >> *true,* >> *immediately knowable,* >> *indubitable (even knowingly so when the cognitive ability are enough >> high)* >> *Non definable without invoking truth* [...] >> > > So the definition of consciousness is stuff that doesn't have a > definition? As I said there has never been a definition of consciousness > that is worth a damn. But that's OK, examples are better than definitions. > > >> *>>> we cannot derive Mechanism* >>> >>> >>And there would be no point in doing so even if we could when we have >>> something much better, direct experience, >> >> > Only after the first experience. >> > > No idea what you mean by that. > > > >> *You cannot use molecular biology to prove mechanism,* >> > > To hell with molecular biology and to hell with proof, I don't need > either to know mechanism is true. > > > *I am neutral on the truth or falsity of mechanism.* >> > > Then you're neutral about you being conscious right now, and I don't > believe that for one nanosecond. > > >> * > My point is only that it give a neoplatonic theology* [...] >> > > Plato was a bore. -Friedrich Nietzsche > Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal. -Leo Tolstoy > Tolstoy's book are loose baggy monsters. -Henry James > Henry James writes fiction as if it were a painful duty. -Oscar Wilde > > *> as the platonic theology contains* [...] >> > > There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it. - Cicero > > >> >>Tautologies are ALWAYS true and that is the only "assumption" needed >>> to figure out that Mechanism as defined by you not me is true, not >>> provable, but true. >> >> > > > Mechanism requires arithmetic. >> > > Mechanism requires arithmetic in the same way a brick requires the > English word "brick". > > >> It is entirely rational to believe in Mechanism >> >> *> Nobody doubt that. The point is to make it precise enough to derive >> testable consequence.* >> > > There is no point in testing mechanism because direct experience even out > ranks the scientific method. > > > *It provides a non Aristotelian view of reality,* >> > > Non Aristotelian? How odd to divide things up between stuff > Aristotle knew and stuff he didn't, one pile is infinitely larger than the > other. > > >>because I have an absolutely superb reason for doing so, direct >>> experience. >> >> > > *> You cannot experience a philosophical assumption* >> > > Absolutely positively 100% correct. I can therefore logically conclude > that direct experience is NOT a philosophical assumption. > > > *in rigorous metaphysics* [...] >> > > There is a word for rigorous metaphysics, it's called "physics", you > should try it someday. > > John K Clark > >
Physics is just a (growing) language (including tensors[1] and lagrangians[2], etc.) used for modeling a very small aspect of nature. In the future, today's Physics (language) could be replaced by computer code[3]. Metaphysics is more like a religion or a poetry that makes us think we "understand" Physics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor_field#Tensor_calculus ]2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_(field_theory)#Mathematical_formalism [3] https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-end-of-theoretical-physics-as-we-know-it-20180827/ @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/de58a6be-6305-4486-99db-cf2b90a1cb9b%40googlegroups.com.
